All of notriddle's Comments + Replies

If believing things such as "humans need to stop pumping CO2 into the air before we destroy the environment" looks like a sign of bias, then you're as bad as a left-wing parody of right-wingers.

The bias is not in believing that global warming is happening (it seems to be) or that we're the cause of it (we probably are) or even that it's a bad thing (it seems likely millions may well die if we don't get a handle on it). The bias is in taking those facts and then implicitly saying "therefore if you don't support my policy suggestions, or ev... (read more)

If believing things such as "humans need to stop pumping CO2 into the air before we destroy the environment" looks like a sign of bias

Using the expressions "pumping CO2 into the air" and "destroy the environment" sure looks like a sign of bias to me. As does choosing this way to frame the global warming debate.

3Ben Pace10y
When one looks out at the universe, everything appears to be moving away from oneself. When one leans to the side of the median view, everything else appears tilted to the other. It ain't necessarily so.

reality's well-known liberal bias

It seems you suffer much confusion between the map and the territory.

Real in the same way that a real banana is real.

If preconceived notions make it impossible to do math, then how can we possibly get a result that contradicts with our preconceived notions?

I don't think the article suggests it's literally impossible (some of the respondents passed the test), just terribly hard.

Why wouldn't you expect terminal values to charge? Does your agent have some motivation (which leads it to choose to change) other than its terminal values. Or is it choosing to change its terminal values in pursuit of those values? Or are the terminal value changing involuntarily?

In the first case, the things doing the changing are not the real terminal values.

In the second case, that doesn't seem to make sense.

In the third case, what we're discussing is no longer a perfect rational agent.

What exactly do you mean by "perfect rational agent"? Does such a creature exist in reality?

Similar to B_For_Bandana's idea, use the refund system to convert gift cards into cash.

See also: voluntary homelessness.

Absolute non-contradiction? Since anything else (that is, any contradictory statement) is absolutely horrible, if absolute non-contradiction is also horrible then nothing good exists.

edit: s/than nothing/then nothing/

In my visualization, a man (don't remember what he looked like) was walking along a line with a 90 degree turn away from me (think of how GPS navigators represent roads, only the only thing I visualized was the road that was actually used). When he turned, the camera panned along with him, keeping his back to me, and we were facing a double-door entryway.

My visualizations seem to lack every detail they can possibly lack...

Mine lacked one detail yours had; the actual walking. In classic dream-logic, the man was briefly in a walking pose on a streetlike object, then instantly at the door of the drugstore, opening it and turning in. On the other hand, in my image he had white hair and was nearly bald. So clearly I'm not 'winning' in a 'how much detail can you omit' contest.

I may be somewhat more radical than a lot of people here, but I don't think the fat man should be deluded. It will hurt him more in the long run, because, believing himself to be agile, he'll sign up for physically strenuous jobs and may injure himself, or try to compete in sports and be let down hard, instead of lightly like a controlled reveal could be.

Starts out right; being pointlessly angry at all those crazy drivers is a waste of energy, and often the result of various fallacies (fundamental fallacy? if you drove like that, you'd have a reason to).

But then you mention "why not even find some reason to be happy about it?" That's a bias; cut it out. Also, you want the kid to realize that spitting juice onto the carpet is unacceptable.

Isn't "by the truth" an extremely important qualifier?! I'm really curious how the two quotes are the same.

Correct me if I read it wrong, but did you just say that induction doesn't work? I admit I don't know how to even begin arguing for induction, so you've got a great opportunity; give an actual argument, rather than just saying we live in "a world where counter-induction holds."

Also, while any phenomenon can be described by an infinite number of math equations, the more complicated ones are less likely to be true. See also, Occam's Razor. Obviously, this relies on probability theory, which was formulated by induction, but you did say "even if you believe that there are some magic objective facts" which I assumed to be induction, probability theory, etc.

I like the idea, but they seem kind of gimmicky. (thinking of LW's comments section, it would be hard to give another icon the kind of prominence we want, without making it too big). How about a green/red bar, like the one on YouTube?